Soooooo... The polygraph.

[schapm]

I took one for a job. It wasn’t that bad. I think a huge part of it comes down to the person running the test, which may account for at least some of the unreliability that people talk about.

 

[Denny347]

The test isn't the point of it. It is the admissions prior to the test that they are looking for.

 

[jbombelli]

Sure. I'll take a polygraph.

Q: is your name jbombelli?
A: I don't answer questions.

 

[Ingomike]

Sure. I'll take a polygraph.

Q: is your name jbombelli?
A: I don't answer questions.

But you just did, and the polygraph indicated it was a lie.

 

[tackdriver]

... The test isn't the point of it. ...

It's the same for depositions and interrogations. It's one more point in establishing subordinate / superior positioning. We're looking into you - you respond; We want you at a particular place and time - you appear; We ask questions - you give us answers; We want to hook you up to a machine - you allow it. If they are good, the questions that lead you into a trap only come when they believe your sufficiently primed and they can lead you to say what they need you to say.

 

[HoughMade]

Use in court in Indiana is kind of interesting thing in that it only comes in if both sides stipulate to it. Criminal defendants especially agree to take them more often than you would think...because they have a tendency to be not that bright.

I should give them a break though, because it's similar to my very intelligent doctor clients who frequently say things like: "If I can just get a chance to explain what happened to the plaintiff's attorney, he'll drop the suit."

The next time that happens, it will be the first time in my 24+ year career.

Anyhoo, here's a interesting twist. Sometimes the accused will stipulate to admissibility and agree to take the polygraph, but then during the pre-polygraph interview "to see whether the subject is appropriate for a polygraph", the examiner will determine that the accused is not a proper subject....and then the investigators will say that they will not stipulate to admissibility, but would like to do an "investigatory" examination nonetheless. See what just happened there? How often? No idea.

I have only had a client ask me about taking a polygraph once. It was in a case where my client and....not his employer, but an entity that oversaw his employer were also defendants. This Co-defendant wanted to have a polygraph performed to see if my client should be allowed to continue doing the job he was in. I counseled not to take it, but told him: "it's your choice to make"...'cause why would I ever recommend someone do something like that? He took it and passed, I guess (it was between him and the...entity).

He still does the type of job he did back then....but not in NWI.

 

[HoughMade]

The test isn't the point of it. It is the admissions prior to the test that they are looking for.

Or after it when the subject is asked to explain their answers to questions that "appeared deceptive" or where the results were unclear.

 

[HoughMade]

It's the same for depositions and interrogations. It's one more point in establishing subordinate / superior positioning. We're looking into you - you respond; We want you at a particular place and time - you appear; We ask questions - you give us answers; We want to hook you up to a machine - you allow it. If they are good, the questions that lead you into a trap only come when they believe your sufficiently primed and they can lead you to say what they need you to say.

Interrogations yes, but in the criminal context, there are, essentially, no depositions of a defendant...the right to remain silent and all.

In the civil context, you don't have a choice whether or not to give a deposition...unless there is a a genuine chance of criminal prosecution, in which case you can still be required to sit for a deposition and plead the Fifth....and your pleading of the Fifth most certainly IS admissible in a civil action.

 

[edporch]

I know someone personally that I know INDEPENDENTLY told the truth, YET they were still accused of lying by some polygraph examiner.
She almost had her career destroyed and if a superior hadn't stepped in, would have.

I will never take a so-called "lie detector" test, as there's no such thing as a machine that can tell conclusively that someone is telling the truth or telling a lie.

When the day comes that the courts will allow a defendant in a criminal trial to opt out of the trial by simply connecting up to a REAL lie detector and be asked "did you commit this crime? Yes or no.".

And if the defendant says "no", and the machine says they told the truth, the Judge will declare the defendant innocent and be told "you are free to go".
UNTIL THEN, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A "LIE DETECTOR".

 

[terrehautian]

What is that?

Jerry springer show without jerry but who was his “security “ on the stage.

 

[tackdriver]

Interrogations yes, but in the criminal context, there are, essentially, no depositions of a defendant...the right to remain silent and all.

In the civil context, you don't have a choice whether or not to give a deposition...unless there is a a genuine chance of criminal prosecution, in which case you can still be required to sit for a deposition and plead the Fifth....and your pleading of the Fifth most certainly IS admissible in a civil action.

Sorry, I did mean civil law depositions. Did one a few years ago that sure felt like an interogation. I was the defendant in a civil case that was complete fiction. If there has ever been a violation of Rule 11, this was it! I didn't understand the rules at the time, and nobody that did, cared. The attorney doing the depo was born and raised in that big country where Harbor Freight tools come from - yep, THAT one! Her approach to the depositions was what you might imagine. "I ask question. You must give me this answer NOW!" and "I think you are lying when you don't agree with me." sort of thing. I didn't play along, and I think she wanted to call in the party firing squad.

It was like she had a list of phases she had to get me to say. (She could cut-n-paste them together to her liking later.) She had a nice typed up set of carefully crafted questions, arranged to step-by-step to get me to say each one. I'd ask her to clarify and rephrase the question, or to define some term for me. Then I'd give an answer that negated negated her insinuations, presumptions, and rhetoric. If you've watched Jordan Peterson, you'll get the picture. She would then ask the same thing again 5, 6, 7 times, using different words, trying to corral me into say her pre-determined phrases. I'd say "I still don't understand, but IF your asking X, then Y." Y would always include the inconvenient (for her) facts of the case.

Note: This same attorney had previously submitted a doctored transcript to the court, and a motion grossly misrepresented what was said. In fact, the altered transcript was the only "evidence" they offered to support the case. If she wanted to quote me again, it was going to be difficult to spin it. Hmmm... They barely referred to the 10 hours of my deposition later on.

The event was scheduled for up to 3 hrs. The rules allowed for 1 day, up to 7 hrs (Fed.). At the 6 hr 54 min mark we took a break, then stopped. She was angry, and said she was only about 20% through her questions (and obviously hadn't gotten to any of the important parts). I politely said "...not my problem!" I did volunteer to keep going a while longer if she could get it over with. She went to the judge, asked for an additional deposition, complained that I didn't answer the way she wanted, and then asked the judge to order me to only give brief, direct answers. The judge ordered it so...

Here's the punch line: I asked for clarification of the courts order. I reminded everyone that I would be under an oath to tell the WHOLE truth, and I take oaths verrrry seriously. I was obligated to provide answers that were truthful and avoided misinterpretation. I offered that I would gladly give brief succinct answers IF she could ask questions that allowed for them. However, I pointed out that this lawyer had misrepresented my statements to the court in the past, possibly due to obvious language barriers. I asked the court for guidance on how to answer a question, under oath, if a brief response would likely be misleading. The judge said 'Understood. You must uphold your oath. Just try to do your best from there'. Back for 3 hours of round 2! This time I was prepared, and did the same things, just more focused and brief!

Sorry this is off the topic of Polygraphs. I started typing, and the memory was so entertaining I couldn't stop.

 

[VostocK]

I've taken 3 of them over the years for employment reasons. There is no such thing as a lie detector. The machine is a stress detector and once you understand that you can say whatever you want.

My impression is that the testing is to see if you will deviate from the answers you gave in the interview before the testing started. In all of my tests, and in every test any of my coworkers took, the examiner always tells you at the end that you showed some level of deception on at least one of the questions. This is done after the equipment is turned off and the sensors are removed. For example, in my most recent test (which was almost 10 years ago), the examiner told me I showed some level of deception on a question which I was completely honest about. He kept trying to get me to admit that I was not being completely truthful about that one subject. After a few minutes he gave up on trying and I left convinced that I failed the test because he was a lot more confrontational that other poly examiners I had encountered. But I eventually got word I passed the test.

 

[actaeon277]

The detector is the skill of the operator.
Just like most jobs, you have people that barely get by, and you have some wizards.

There is also a 'science' to it.
And the people that 'barely get by' don't understand it. They just follow their steps, rote. Not understanding why.



Then again, I felt pretty much the same way with the psych eval before I could become a nuke.

 

[Nazgul]

Remember the old G. Gordon Liddy radio show? I used to listen regularly.

He talked about catching a crook and telling him he had to take a lie detector test. They used some random wires around his chest and wrists hooked to a mimeograph machine. Every time he answered they cranked the handle and "Lie" came out on the paper. Eventually the idiot confessed.

Don